Quote Originally Posted by allodial View Post
I would tread more prayerfully than carefully. There were many named 'Jesus'. Consider that the Talmudic stories about a son of Pantera didn't necessarily exist until the 2nd century A.D. Some if not many or most might fail to realize the link to the name at Exodus 3:14 which was put there for a reason. The names Hosea and perhaps even Isaiah are related to the discussion. The Hebrew/Chaldee/Phoenician words for savior and deliverer are 'yeh-shah' and 'howshea'. Add 'yeh' or the like to the beginning of 'howshea' and you get 'yeh+howshea' which is hardly a slur. However "Yehushuah " perhaps you have a point. Referring to someone as a bastard isn't a slur? A bastard according to whose standard?

In Hebrew/Chaldee/Phoenician the tidbit "shua" can connote: "sink or be bowed down, or humbled". However 'shea' is sometimes transliterated to 'shua'. 'shaua' refers to a 'cry for help'. However 'yeshua' means 'salvation' (rel. fem. noun). Also related are: shoa (free man or noble), yesha (salvation) and teshua (deliverance/salvation).

As for hijinx concerning names and name games of concealing true names, that some ancient Babylonians had complexes over the truth and were prone to demand to be worshiped and prostrated to seems plain in the historical record. No surprise at all if their progeny seem to follow suit. How much from Babylon can be deemed to be reliable? How do first and second century interpretations somehow manage to trump thousands of years of Ancient Old Dynasty Egyptian (remember Moses wrote using ancient Egyptian words) and Hebrew teachings and writings?

The Hidden Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus IV Connection
Also, one might do well to consider the Idumean attack on Israel (FROM WITHIN) and subsequent taking of Judea (with the help of Rome and Pompey) then capture of the Temple (130BC to 0AD ) and destruction (70AD) in view of your model concerning Nebuchadnezzar [two hundred years vs twenty]. The coming of the one predicated by Israel in Genesis was purposed to thwart Babylonian-Edomite attempts at 'taking heaven' (they couldn't do it by way of the Tower, so they went after the Temple and the Holy of Holies (as a gateway or portal)). All of such preceded by Antiochus IV Epiphanes who besieged the Jerusalem temple and slaughtered a pig there. The same Idumeans (Herodian line) helped siege the Jerusalem temple YET AGAIN ~63 B.C. But that is what Antiocus IV did only a 100 years or so before. Pompey (Roman general) with Hyrcanus (Herodian) help overcome Aristobulus and eventually himself entered the Holy of Holies too!

The problem for the Babylonians is that they weren't necessarily experts in Egyptian. They have attempted to claim origination of that which was written in a language which predates Babylon: fail.



It was an Idumean army that arrived in 68AD. How 'convenient' that the details of the 60 AD to 70AD periods have been left out of the discussion in "Christian churches" for so long. So begs the question: how can the "Jews" (Judeans, those of the house of Judah) that rejected Jesus and who were either taken into captivity or slaughtered at Jerusalem also be the very same "Jews" (Idumeans) who brought an army against Jerusalem together with the Romans? Mind you: Israel was predominantly in captivity or exile at the time.



The main persons arguing are the ones aiming to deny the truth or to overlay (cover) it with something else. Consider those who deny Edomite Herod's slaughter of the Innocents when ancient 350BC text written in latin (for which, 'conveniently', English translations are hardly available online except behind a pricey paywall or campus restricted context) that records Augustus responding to the news of the Slaughter of Innocents perpetrated by Herod and saying that he'd rather be a pig (hus) than one of Herod's sons (huios) (some leave out the text about the slaughter of infants under the age of two years, again, 'conveniently'). When leaders of a religion, philosophy or political system deliberately mislead 'followers' even to the extent of omitting over 160 years from the calendar--for the purpose of concealing the truth--, how reliable can their testimony be? What is there then to argue? Lies vs truth. Yielding to the truth yields fruit, no arguments then.

Consider those who spend lots of time hiding Middle Eastern artifacts in order to thwart proof of Bible historical accuracy. Not to mention that Joseph (Imnhotep) wasn't just an imaginary symbolic figure--he really lived and the evidence is all over the place. Who is arguing but those who want a different 'truth'. If those who tell us that its "all relative" really believed that--they would leave others alone, but they don't tend to unless checked.




Related:

Back to MJ's opening sentence:

arguments over historical accuracy rarely if ever yield any fruit.

Yet we all study history in order to communicate on the "same page". In the opening videos the studied historian met with somebody in the Q&A reciting a contradiction, You and I read different books.

And so I can get to my point - to reconcile Michael Joseph's approach in a manner so to be edifying, and for the right to be right not to be violated. - Or at least only infringed upon.

There is a point in the Bible, as I study it, that the allegorical metaphor takes over. A rib taken out of Adam and fabricated with dust into Eve is a bit difficult for me to swallow literally. Here again I need to bow homage to carbon-dating; history. The evidence of Jesus being a man who lived in and around Israel and the accounting of the political climate brings the history, fact, law and truth to life for me. Five years of A Course in Miracles without any direct reading of Ken WAPNICK, who commercialized the work product of LSD dosing by Bill THETFORD on victim Helen SCHUCKMAN taught me well that we do not all simply disperse to find our own truths (plural) or even to experience the obvious, that we all settle for the Truth (objective) from our individual perspectives. The Voice of Jesus, directly channeled through Helen by such objective double-blind and scientific means makes it clear on several occasions that there is only One Objective Truth to be found; best expressed that God is Love and to find God one needs to Forgive.

The premise about this Objective Truth is that Communication and Creation are synonyms and so therefore what we are up to here is communicating/creating. In the next sentence or two the Voice explains that only beings of like Order can truly Communicate. This is interesting that we have simultaneously the Thread about Pay to the Order of...

So I was setting in a restaurant with a man, whom I admire his transforms. He is actually the glue holding together the unfathomable manufacturing process of near-infinitely complex machinery. In other words, he interfaces with mechanics and engineers who have never worked in their garages, on their cars. The normal transforms operate in subsets and subsystems that are in turn so complex that they "specialize". This engineer specializes in general. So I feel a certain kinship with this fellow, in that he is invaluable but feared, as the people who need him do not understand why they need him, or how his mind works so that he can actually dance around in genius, completely immune to the finite boundaries of "discipline".

But as I returned to the table he took time to thank me for all he had learned, mostly here, from my writings. That meant the world at the moment. Still does.

So to throw in the towel that we may all seek our own truth strikes me as the cop out resorted to in ACIM when confronted with the National Security Archives reports in MK-ULTRA declassified sub-projects proving Bill was dosing Helen with LSD - "That is your truth, David Merrill." Actually they like to call me Planet, for Planet Merrill so that I can more easily be dismissed.

I propose that this does nothing to avoid the emotional confrontation, only postpones the altercation while we both quietly build our arsenals with more and more history. I say it is better to accept only one objective history and forgive ourselves and each other so immediately we no longer even detect differences in our perceptions as attacks on each other.